What I can grasp is that the recovery model doesn’t focus on “wrap-around care”. You can lock someone in a room until their withdrawals pass, but if you don’t address the root issues (usually poverty or lack of mental illness support) of why they started to begin with, the cycle will just repeat.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

From the article:

The UCP’s plan focuses exclusively on addictions and offers nothing to address permanent supportive housing, treatment wait times and wraparound services...

I mean yeah... Without addressing housing issues, health appointment wait times and social services, people will not use less drugs. I 100% agree with that. But these have nothing to do with the way services for addictions are provided. What is a social worker supposed to do about your housing, if rent prices are through the roof? Notice how none of these articles have any experts taking about the services being provided or actual evidence of their effectiveness (or lack thereof). It's politically-aligned representatives, talking shit about the other side, without any rational arguments. They don't give a shit about addicts, lol. They give ea shit about arguing with the other side and "winning".

"Recovery model" is not the issue. Politicians are the issue.

You can lock someone in a room until their withdrawal passes...

No. You can't. That is not what "recovery model" or work with addictions in modern day Canada looks like. Nobody is getting locked anywhere, people die if you do that because you can't just stop cold turkey alcohol or opiates. Literally die.

Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of shit that needs to be fixed in mental health services, but ReCoVeRy MoDeL BaD is just a political slogan. So yeah. Maybe don't take your mental health education from the guys that just want to stoke hate so they can get your vote.

[–] a9249@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

Remember kids, its not corruption if its "legal".

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Seems like a bad idea to me, but I'd rather be wrong and see people helped than be right and "told ya so" when the money just lines private pockets, so good luck to them.

[–] voluble@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think the polarization about the issue of what to do about drug addiction is partially a symptom of the fact that different communities have different needs. The approach needs to be different in Gunn than in downtown Edmonton. But, we're in a position where the political interests of the citizens in those places don't overlap very much, so no matter what, we're going to end up with solutions that nobody is fully happy with.

Speaking as a person with absolutely no love for the UCP, and with dissimilar views about how to address the problem of addiction, I don't hate the fact that they're actually trying something that might help people. Maybe this program won't work, but at least it's an attempt. It's better than hand waving about abstinence and law and order which takes no effort at all.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Welp, at least it's a non-profit and the amount of people under care is increasing.

I'd say this kind of thing is in the best 1% of UCP moments, considering everything else. It's a low bar but still.